|
On July 26 2018 00:47 palexhur wrote: Froome always shows "miraculous" recovery after his bad stage, lets wait until friday before any conclusion.
Doesn't matter. Unless you're thinking Froome can repeat his Giro super bomb attack by going on Tourmalet.
Friday's stage won't see gaps barring a crash or people cracking, the climbs just aren't hard enough. The Tourmalet is legit, but it's ages out and will just be ridden at tempo. After Tourmalet it's like 9km at 5.8% and 15km but at only 4.7%. Not even close to hard enough to make differences. Moreover, it follows with a decent to the finish so riders won't be incentive to bother with attacking.
I think the gaps you see now are the gaps you have at the start of the TT, barring of course a crack likes Yates at the Giro or a surprise long bomb.
Also damn, Bernal was magnificent today. Controlled the whole group all the day to inside 3km to go, and looked fluid and like he could have gone with Roglic's move as well, despite being on the front. Props to him for being such an aware and good teammates. As soon as Roglic went he immediately looked back for Froome and dropped back to assist. Not a split second hesitation or any thoughts of glory.
|
Ouaiaaaiaeee what a descent! 20 fucking seconds!!
|
Cool move by Roglic, and good attempt by Landa; but in Landa's case the legs haven't been there. If he had last year's form it might have been good enough to at least get him a podium as it was well orchestrated and with some other good leaders.
Also, Bernal is ridiculous.
G should basically just need to stay upright tomorrow and he wins the Tour. Will be interesting to see if Thomas and Froome both remain at Sky. Seems unlikely even if they are long time teammates and good friends.
|
Roglic deserved the win 100%. Can only see Dumoulin having a chance to beat him tomorrow. Which means froome out of the podium. Giro fatigue? But Dumoulin was also at the giro podium and never cracked. Also this is the strongest top 10 I remember off the top of my head.
|
Fun stage. That pacing by Gesink was savage, he took like 2 mins in a few kms.
Dumoulin is the best timetrialist there, but knowing how is riding Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes the stage tomorrow... though it would go against the laws of physiology (If you are a grown up rider and improve climbing, you are supposed to be a worse timetrialist). I would say Dumo >30"> Thomas/Roglic >30"> Froome, and Geraint takes the Tour.
|
I say Thomas > Dumoulin > Froome > Roglic tomorrow.
|
On July 28 2018 03:21 Elmonti wrote: Fun stage. That pacing by Gesink was savage, he took like 2 mins in a few kms.
Dumoulin is the best timetrialist there, but knowing how is riding Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes the stage tomorrow... though it would go against the laws of physiology (If you are a grown up rider and improve climbing, you are supposed to be a worse timetrialist). I would say Dumo >30"> Thomas/Roglic >30"> Froome, and Geraint takes the Tour.
No it wouldn't. It would be the law of "Dumoulin had a shit day". Thomas TT's pretty well but Dumoulin is MUCH better. Thomas can't touch Froome in a TT and Dumoulin is clearly superior to Froome.
Moreover, it also doesn't go against the laws of physiology. TT speed is all about watts/CdA. Climbing is w/kg. Thomas is quoted at around 70kg, Dumoulin around 72-73kg. They are climbing about the same, so assuming 6w/kg as is typical that's 420w from Thomas and 440w from Dumoulin. In other words, Dumoulin is barely bigger than Thomas. It's not like Thomas is a Quintana pipsqueak. Thomas is BIGGER than Froome.
20w difference ain't much. If we assume their positions are similarly as good (given how much better Dumoulin is, I'd guess Dumoulin is actually more aero), probably by 10w or so. If Dumoulin has a bad day and is off by 5-10% and Thomas is solid, that's enough difference from Thomas to eek out a tie or small win.
Moreover, a small guy being good at TT does not "defy the laws of physiology". It's rare though, because big guys can usually get into positions almost as good as smaller guys. Take a smaller guy like Roglic, at 65kg, and the reason he is doing so well at TT is because his position is exceptional. It's about as closed off as I've ever seen. We don't have wind tunnel data, but in his case you can see a visible difference between him and even Dumoulin with his more compact frame and uniquely closed to air flow setup from the front. When you have a guy that can still produce excellent power in a uniquely slippery position you get a smaller guy that can compete with the best. That's also why Roglic was known as a TT specialist before being a decent climber; he's always had an incredible position.
|
On July 28 2018 06:36 HolydaKing wrote: I say Thomas > Dumoulin > Froome > Roglic tomorrow.
I'd be pretty surprised if Thomas won. Dumoulin and Roglic would both have to shit the bed so to speak.
Dumoulin > Roglic > Thomas > Froome.
I'm confident Froome is last and Dumoulin wins. Less sure about Roglic and Thomas. Roglic would usually be better, but might be a little more tired than Thomas and also Thomas has been going marginally faster as well uphill.
|
On July 28 2018 09:52 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 03:21 Elmonti wrote: Fun stage. That pacing by Gesink was savage, he took like 2 mins in a few kms.
Dumoulin is the best timetrialist there, but knowing how is riding Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes the stage tomorrow... though it would go against the laws of physiology (If you are a grown up rider and improve climbing, you are supposed to be a worse timetrialist). I would say Dumo >30"> Thomas/Roglic >30"> Froome, and Geraint takes the Tour. No it wouldn't. It would be the law of "Dumoulin had a shit day". Thomas TT's pretty well but Dumoulin is MUCH better. Thomas can't touch Froome in a TT and Dumoulin is clearly superior to Froome. Moreover, it also doesn't go against the laws of physiology. TT speed is all about watts/CdA. Climbing is w/kg. Thomas is quoted at around 70kg, Dumoulin around 72-73kg. They are climbing about the same, so assuming 6w/kg as is typical that's 420w from Thomas and 440w from Dumoulin. In other words, Dumoulin is barely bigger than Thomas. It's not like Thomas is a Quintana pipsqueak. Thomas is BIGGER than Froome. 20w difference ain't much. If we assume their positions are similarly as good (given how much better Dumoulin is, I'd guess Dumoulin is actually more aero), probably by 10w or so. If Dumoulin has a bad day and is off by 5-10% and Thomas is solid, that's enough difference from Thomas to eek out a tie or small win. Moreover, a small guy being good at TT does not "defy the laws of physiology". It's rare though, because big guys can usually get into positions almost as good as smaller guys. Take a smaller guy like Roglic, at 65kg, and the reason he is doing so well at TT is because his position is exceptional. It's about as closed off as I've ever seen. We don't have wind tunnel data, but in his case you can see a visible difference between him and even Dumoulin with his more compact frame and uniquely closed to air flow setup from the front. When you have a guy that can still produce excellent power in a uniquely slippery position you get a smaller guy that can compete with the best. That's also why Roglic was known as a TT specialist before being a decent climber; he's always had an incredible position.
You have misunderstood what I meant, I didn't bring up Dumo or Roglic, I was not comparing GT to anyone... I didn't say that you HAVE to be a worse TT if you are smaller because that's not true (Rominger, T.Martin, even people like Evans or Contador were pretty good at TT), what I meant is that when you have already matured as a rider (we assume Thomas is already a formed rider being 32yo), improving in one aspect should mean getting worse at the other. Let's say if Thomas was 75 kgs when he won the E3 three years ago, and now he has dropped to 70 kgs to climb better, those are 5 kgs less which should have repercussion in the power he can put in flat-ish time trials. Of course thats not 5kgs of pure muscle, but neither are 5kgs of pure fat, so it HAS to have repercussion in the TTs.
Thats what I meant: under the laws of physiology, when being 32yo, if u loose weight to climb better, u loose power to dish in the TTs. (and I specify being a mature rider... if Bernal being 21 yo improves in everything for the next 3 or 4 years that's normal since he hasn't reached his peak yet)
PD: of course that doesn't mean he necessarily has to do a better/worse TT than Dumo/Roglic. I was just talking about "standart" facts
|
On July 28 2018 17:09 Elmonti wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 09:52 L_Master wrote:On July 28 2018 03:21 Elmonti wrote: Fun stage. That pacing by Gesink was savage, he took like 2 mins in a few kms.
Dumoulin is the best timetrialist there, but knowing how is riding Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes the stage tomorrow... though it would go against the laws of physiology (If you are a grown up rider and improve climbing, you are supposed to be a worse timetrialist). I would say Dumo >30"> Thomas/Roglic >30"> Froome, and Geraint takes the Tour. No it wouldn't. It would be the law of "Dumoulin had a shit day". Thomas TT's pretty well but Dumoulin is MUCH better. Thomas can't touch Froome in a TT and Dumoulin is clearly superior to Froome. Moreover, it also doesn't go against the laws of physiology. TT speed is all about watts/CdA. Climbing is w/kg. Thomas is quoted at around 70kg, Dumoulin around 72-73kg. They are climbing about the same, so assuming 6w/kg as is typical that's 420w from Thomas and 440w from Dumoulin. In other words, Dumoulin is barely bigger than Thomas. It's not like Thomas is a Quintana pipsqueak. Thomas is BIGGER than Froome. 20w difference ain't much. If we assume their positions are similarly as good (given how much better Dumoulin is, I'd guess Dumoulin is actually more aero), probably by 10w or so. If Dumoulin has a bad day and is off by 5-10% and Thomas is solid, that's enough difference from Thomas to eek out a tie or small win. Moreover, a small guy being good at TT does not "defy the laws of physiology". It's rare though, because big guys can usually get into positions almost as good as smaller guys. Take a smaller guy like Roglic, at 65kg, and the reason he is doing so well at TT is because his position is exceptional. It's about as closed off as I've ever seen. We don't have wind tunnel data, but in his case you can see a visible difference between him and even Dumoulin with his more compact frame and uniquely closed to air flow setup from the front. When you have a guy that can still produce excellent power in a uniquely slippery position you get a smaller guy that can compete with the best. That's also why Roglic was known as a TT specialist before being a decent climber; he's always had an incredible position. You have misunderstood what I meant, I didn't bring up Dumo or Roglic, I was not comparing GT to anyone... I didn't say that you HAVE to be a worse TT if you are smaller because that's not true (Rominger, T.Martin, even people like Evans or Contador were pretty good at TT), what I meant is that when you have already matured as a rider (we assume Thomas is already a formed rider being 32yo), improving in one aspect should mean getting worse at the other. Let's say if Thomas was 75 kgs when he won the E3 three years ago, and now he has dropped to 70 kgs to climb better, those are 5 kgs less which should have repercussion in the power he can put in flat-ish time trials. Of course thats not 5kgs of pure muscle, but neither are 5kgs of pure fat, so it HAS to have repercussion in the TTs. Thats what I meant: under the laws of physiology, when being 32yo, if u loose weight to climb better, u loose power to dish in the TTs. (and I specify being a mature rider... if Bernal being 21 yo improves in everything for the next 3 or 4 years that's normal since he hasn't reached his peak yet) PD: of course that doesn't mean he necessarily has to do a better/worse TT than Dumo/Roglic. I was just talking about "standart" facts
I agree with that in principle.
In the case of Thomas, obviously he was always good at short TT given he was pursuit champion.
In becoming a GC rider he gave up some anaerobic cap to improve his ability at threshold/aerobic climb. This means he is faster at 40' and slower at 4', which is fair because he would get thrashed at a pursuit now. I bet he is at least 10s to 15s slower at 4km pursuit now.
Although less likely given his pursuit background, it also possible Thomas improved his position. That can happen anytime. Most likely though he improved his long term sustainability and comfort in that position. I would expect a pursuit guy to have very aggressive position that he can maybe stay for 4' but for long time he can't stay there from discomfort and loses aero. As Thomas serious to GC rider I think he may have improved his long TT position giving some boost there combined with a few more watts at 40'.
In short for Thomas I think:
- 30 to 60' watts went up a little - 20' and less watts went down, with watts at 5' down a lot - more aero at duration longer than 10'
I think this also makes sense with weight loss. Excess muscle doesn't usually change threshold/aerobic too much. I don't think a guy like Marcel Kittle or even Sagan has more aerobic watts than someone like a Dennis, Kung, or Martin at his best. Big muscle guys usually have large anaerobic cap though, giving HUGE power at 5' and okay power at 5' to 20'. If Kittle lost 20lbs I don't think his threshold watts would change much, but his power at 10' would become MUCH less.
That's exactly what I think the change was for Thomas. Less short time period/anaerobic watts in exchange for similar or small improvenent in aerobic watts in a now lighter body.
We can basically confirm this too because Thomas can't compete at all with people like Martin or Valverde or Alaphillipe up Mur or similar climb.
|
On July 25 2018 06:36 Elmonti wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 19:03 KobraKay wrote:On July 20 2018 07:32 Elmonti wrote:On July 20 2018 05:33 L_Master wrote:[ Cristopher Froome is the greatest laboratory product the cycling has ever seen. And there are tons of records to support this. LOL?! A guy with a low 6w/kg FTP that couldn't hack it as a cycling domestique in the 2000s era is a greater "laboratory cyclist" than Big Mig's 550w FTP dragging 80kg up mountains, or Marco Pantani soaring up hills at 7.5 w/kg blasts to win stages by minutes? Well I see for the most part we agree in facts but just take different conclusions. Fair enough. Just one thing regarding the "laboratory product": when I say that i'm not refering to "the most juiced up" rider ever, by any means. We all agree that was the Lance/Pantani/Ullrich era, and after that the Indurain/Rominger/Ciapucci (scary 64% Ugrumov, omg). By that I mean they created a monster (dominating as they want and crushing GC opponents both in mountain and ITT) from the scratch. Thats the BIG difference. Lance was a superb classics rider (WC 93, FW, etc.) and Indurain had already won 2 paris-Nice, the Tour de l'avenir (with 23 yo he had won 5 stages in this "sub23 Tour de France"), 2 stages at the tour, etc. They were both great young riders with a lot of projection. Doping (Conconi and Padilla) made Indurain reach that monster level by becoming even better in ITT and much better at climbing. Doping (Ferrari and cia) made Lance reach that monster level by transforming him into a GT smash machine, dominating both ITT and climbing. Even Pantani was since he was a young boy with hair in his head a superb climber, doping made him a much much better one. Good lord, even Wiggins was a great pistard prior to his transformation in the Tour 2009, climbing with Armstrong, Nibali and the Schlecks. But what had Froome done when he became the best rider at the Vuelta 2011?... 1 stage at the Tour of Japan, 1 stage in a Race in Southafrica and 2nd in the British ITT. He was a mediocre to decent timetrialist, and absolutely nothing more. Thats why I see him as a total Product. He was not "enhanced", he was created from the scratch. Thats why I will ever consider him the biggest fraud. DP: sad news for Nibali, he seemed to be okay when he closed the gap after the crash. This stage has been a slaughter... So in your view Roglic and Dumoulin (let's use these 2 as an example) are completly normal brave guys yet the others with similar or worse track records (sky team) are all doped? This is why I called double standards. I don't believe Dumoulin and Roglic are doped but I don't see you accusing them or raising suspicions on them….yet Thomas was a proven rider on the track and took several years on the road to transition to what he was doing last year and this year. (And in my eyes, the organization giving roughly 10 flat stages to start the Tour is helping Thomas more than anyone, he can now ride 2 weeks and avoid his usual downfall in the third week as effectively the first one was almost a bónus.) Roglic was good in his own sport and now this out of the blue. So why is one to blame and the other isnt? Dumoulin is young and because of that his transition was legit? So was Froome when he started. Brailsford said the first time he saw Froome, he saw a guy with a ton of power in his legs but without technique or even proper equipment….maybe that is a lie, or maybe that helps explaining his poor results before joining sky. This is the problem I see with most discussions like this. I'm not going to try to convince you or anything. For one because i'm not sure sky are not doping and also because I dont particularly like them to be defending them. I just hate it when I see the double standard posts. And please note I really like Roglic…..so this is not a biased position in favour of sky, its just some food for thought. Yep, the cases of Dumoulin and Roglic are shady af.... and i do like a lot both riders. Dumoulin is one of my favorites (in general in Spain we do love him.... he reminds us of Indurain), but a 1,90m 70kg time trialist being like the 3rd best climber in this Tour??? In two years he went from a TT specialist to climbing almost as fast as Quintana...no thanks. And Roglic, the ski jumper who got into cycling at like 23 yo, being a Tour GC contender, also very shady. Having said this, it doesn't even compare to Froome's transformation. These two guys showed two years of consistent good results (stages in the BEST races, look at their 2015, 2016 and 2017 results) before being GC contenders.... Froome took 1 f***ng month to do that... without having done shit before. Also you talk about Brailsford's impressions on Froome... these are his real impressions: twitter.com He wanted to sell him to Radioshack team... and of course they didn't want him. So nope... Froome's and Dumoulin's record are not the same. Not even close. But the main difference is Sky's bullshit factory and unprecedented corruption: all that "marginal gains" stuff to justify their utterly superior performances, making a lot of riders become almost retired (Kenaught, Intxausti, etc.) and making riders like Cavendish or Boasson Hagen set the main group's pace in HC climbs, all that Henao blood values shit, their USPostal-kind relationship with Cookson's UCI (his own son working for team Sky), being the most opaque and liar team in modern cycling while being cocky about "new clean cycling"·, Froome's fair and square positive, all the asthma stuff coming out from nowhere, riders like Dylan Van Baarle who do not suffer from Asthma taking Ventolin shots ( twitter.com), Froome winning 3 Tours and 1 Vuelta with 1 kidney, all those journalists/dogs buying and spreding all their bullshit when they learnt Cycling was a sport in 2011, etc. Really, I could write pages and pages about all there is wrong exclusively with them. I do think is way worse than the US Postal....it's more...dirty. Thats why I feel sad when i think his name is going to join the likes of Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault and Indurain. I feel like Sky and all its machinery are taking a dump on cycling itself. You cannot have double standards when you talk about two COMPLETELY different situations.
I'm not comparing past froome to current dumoulin. I was comparing your critique of current Froome to the complet absence on comments regarding Roglic and Dumoulin. The other line you said about them makes my case rest and I'll leave it at that since that is consistent. The only difference is that it was the first time I saw you raise doubt on their performances whereas every other post i see from you is bashing someone at sky. That right there is a double standard regardless of how you try to change the point I was making.
But again, seeing your position on those 2 being similar to that regarding Froome makes me take my statement back ;-)
Closing that part and moving on to today's stage, I spent most of this Tour's last week wondering when were Froome and Dumoulin going to break….I assumed the Giro performances would lead to at least one bad day but maybe the longer distance between the Giro and the Tour this year and the first stages being all flat help avoiding such a day for them, moreso for Dumoulin.
For my fantasy team purposes, a completely off day from Dumoulin today would be ideal but realistically, that seems unlikely.
|
Belgian tv first showing Dumoulin 2nd behind Froome, then suddenly in front of Froome, which one is it now guys?
|
Well it is clear that if you can build a TdF champion like GT, you can do whatever you want in this modern cycling.
|
That was great, TTs with mountains are the best. Would've been even better with a smaller lead from Thomas, I think under pressure he would've won.
|
On July 29 2018 00:09 Laurens wrote:Belgian tv first showing Dumoulin 2nd behind Froome, then suddenly in front of Froome, which one is it now guys? The automatic system had taken a wrong time for Froome (considering him over the goal line about 3 seconds earlier than he actually was), but his time was manually adjusted. So according to the automated system Froome was faster, but with the adjusted times (and thats what counts) Dumo won.
|
Btw: So what will be the captaincy situation next year at Sky?
Even if they can tell Bernal to wait for a year with winning the TdF... Who will be their #1 between Froome and GT?
|
On July 29 2018 00:19 mahrgell wrote: Btw: So what will be the captaincy situation next year at Sky?
Even if they can tell Bernal to wait for a year with winning the TdF... Who will be their #1 between Froome and GT?
Well, I think that this Tour has taught us that the Sky captain will be the rider they decide to, whatever his record or characteristics are. If Thomas and Froome can't race due to crash/leaving the team/doping positive/etc they still have Bernal and Poels as potential Tour winners. Maybe Kwiato.
Terrible TT by Roglic, and superb performance by Froome and Thomas. Dumoulin did the expected, as of being the TT world champion.
Geraint Thomas takes the Tour, he has been the strongest rider by far. Being able to improve A LOT both in TT and in climbing HCs at 32 years old, nothing more that their rivals can do.
Also pretty impressive stuff by both Froome and Dumoulin, getting the 2nd and 3rd spot in podium after having riden the Giro? These kind of things didn't happen since Pantani, Indurain, etc..... so I don't know how to take this, tbh.
The Tour is the most boring big race yet again, though the intrusion of Roglic and Dumo/Froome doing the Giro-Tour have risen some interest, so it hasn't been a total disgrace like the 2016 and 2017 Tours.
|
This TT was WAY more hilly than expected. Close to a climbers TT just up and down the entire time, often steep.
Pretty impressive ride by Kwaitoko on this course.
Geraint get's it done, with much less of a time gap than expected due to the hilliness of the course, where he has clearly been the strongest.
|
On July 29 2018 00:10 palexhur wrote: Well it is clear that if you can build a TdF champion like GT, you can do whatever you want in this modern cycling.
I'm sorry, but you guys are ridiculous. You're remotely suprised a big 76kg powerhouse pursuit TT champion with good skills over cobbles, a HUGE engine, and excellent race skills evolves into a Tour winner?
The formula to win the tour is to be a massive engine that tolerates losing weight while holding most of that power and hangs on in the mountains. Thomas fits this script and development to a T, perhaps even more so than Froome ever did.
When was the last pipsqueak climber to win the tour? Pantani? Domination of the Tour over the past few decades has been Indurain, Armstrong, Landis, Wiggins, then Froome. Only a few tours have been won by moderate climbers: twice by Contador, once by Evans, and once by Nibali (after everyone else good crashed out). Not a true climber to win since Pantani.
Bernal might be good enough to do that. Might be. I'd still back McNulty long before I'd back Bernal though. Small, pure climbers with weak TT ability don't win tours.
Back to pursiter Thomas...take that guy, have him shift his training from 4' power to threshold work and fatigue resistance + a little weight loss and you have the most basic formula for a tour champion. Has been happening for decades not sure why it's a suprise now. Froome going rapidly from mediocre domestique to champion is way more surprising than the gradual evolution of Thomas into a Tour winner if you ask me.
|
On July 29 2018 00:19 mahrgell wrote: Btw: So what will be the captaincy situation next year at Sky?
Even if they can tell Bernal to wait for a year with winning the TdF... Who will be their #1 between Froome and GT?
This will be fascinating. I'm guessing next year Bernal will do lead for Giro, Vuelta, or both. He will either skip or support in the Tour preparing for Vuelta or recovering from Giro.
Thomas and Froome I don't know. I'm kinda thinking one will jump ship, but perhaps they will play the same game as this time with legitimate co-leadership.
On July 29 2018 00:38 Elmonti wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 00:19 mahrgell wrote: Btw: So what will be the captaincy situation next year at Sky?
Even if they can tell Bernal to wait for a year with winning the TdF... Who will be their #1 between Froome and GT? Also pretty impressive stuff by both Froome and Dumoulin, getting the 2nd and 3rd spot in podium after having riden the Giro? These kind of things didn't happen since Pantani, Indurain, etc..... so I don't know how to take this, tbh.
6 weeks instead of 5. HUGE difference. Moreover, prime Froome is the clear best and Dumoulin the clear second best (well perhaps not with arrival of G).
Froome and Dumoulin are both far above the level of guys like Bardet, Roglic (though hugely improved), Kruijswijk, and others. Landa and Quintana are the riders that might have been good rivals and I would think could challenge weak Dumoulin, but both suffered bad crashes and struggled as a result.
As is often the case, the only guy in good health that Froome and Dumoulin beat was Roglic. Bardet wasted HUGE energy on stage 8 and 9. That affected him the entire way, and he has never shown top level climbing ability. Quintana seems his best days are behind him. Landa had a brutal crash on stage 9 that made his form very weak all tour.
So yea, with an extra week to recovery Froome and Dumoulin can both easily beat up on some B listers and injured A listers.
|
|
|
|